This young man is the victim of an unsound educational philosophy. He maintains that what is "best" should always be placed before children and required of them; and what is "best" is that which the adult regards most highly, or which has become conventionalized in books. However it may be in reference to other matters, it is certainly an error to maintain that formal, stereotyped modes of expression should be required of children in order to make them efficient in expression. In the schoolroom of this teacher, one rarely hears genuinely effective expression from pupils. They do not express themselves; they try to remember stilted phraseology, which they will cast to the winds the moment they get outside the school-room door.

To the teacher of young pupils: encourage children to express their thoughts readily, vividly and forcefully, and make suggestions at the psychological moment regarding more appropriate words, terms and forms than those employed; but do not unduly inhibit the child in his spontaneity. It is better to encourage freedom and adventure in expression, even at the risk of occasional errors and vulgarisms, than to stifle spontaneity by insistence upon formal expression. The children who grow linguistically are those who talk readily and dar

ingly, even though they trip and fall at times. This is nature's method in all development.

Doubtless some readers are now asking: Shall we tolerate unconventional speech, even slang, in our Unconventional school-rooms? As a test, let us see; language is the expression, "It's up to you", slang? Recently I asked this question of a group of two hundred upper-class students in a university in the Middle West. Something like two-thirds of them voted, on the spur of the moment, that it was not slang, while the others either thought it was, or were undecided about it. I asked those who declared it was a conventional phrase whether they would feel quite at ease in using it anywhere and on all occasions, if it would serve their purpose effectively. The majority of them believed they would have no greater hesitation in any situation in employing this than any other expression in current use. It had become so familiar to them, and it slipped off their tongues so handily, that it did not appear to be in any respect peculiar or exceptional, or not in good repute among respectable persons. They could not understand how it could be offensive to any one who should hear it, or how in using it they would be doing violence to the proprieties of life.

Some of the students said they were in the habit of using this expression in the give-and-take of conversation with their associates, but they always "cut it out" in the class-room. They thought it was very well adapted to informal and rather intimate intercourse among friends and comrades, but it was not altogether proper in more formal and conventional situations. Why this should be so, they could not explain fully; they simply felt the force of it.

It seemed clear that these latter persons were in a transitional stage with regard to the employment of this unconventional phrase, if we may so characterize it here. When they first heard it, they considered it to be slang; but as their ears became more accustomed to it, it began slowly to lose its strange and disreputable character. In due course they ventured shyly to try it on occasionally in their own expressions, when no one was looking, as it were. Seeing that it worked well, and that no tragedy resulted therefrom to themselves or to others, it gradually became established in their informal intercourse as a serviceable and dynamic phrase. But on account of their uncomfortable feeling when they disregard the conventional requirements of speech, they have not yet reached the point where they can employ much of their every-day language in the more impressive situations of life. They change

their speech as they change their clothes, when they attend the president's reception or go to take tea at the woman's club. Other people are less apprehensive about the evil results of taking a little liberty with precedents, in speech as in other matters, so they give rather free rein to their tongues whenever they are incited to communicate on any topic or on any occasion.

If I should ask of a group of men and women in a drawing-room in Brookline, Massachusetts, the What is objectionable

in one section may be acceptable in another

question which I put to students in the university above referred to, nine out of ten of them would say the phrase mentioned is slang, and ought not to be used by cultured persons. But if I should put the same question to a drawing-room group in Chicago, or Cincinnati, or Oakland, or Seattle, or Butte, or Ironwood, the majority would say the expression is entirely acceptable, that it is picturesque and effective, and that it ought to be freely employed, even in formal intercourse, when an opening for it occurs in conversation. If again I put the question to a group of business men anywhere west of the Ohio River, practically every one of them will say the expression may be used with propriety on all occasions. Once more, if I should ask the professors at Oxford, England, whether "it's

up to you" is good English, they would probably condemn it as a vulgarism. But if I should go to Eton or Rugby and publish it, the young fellows there would be glad to hear it, and they would seize upon it as a welcome addition to their dynamic vocabulary. As a matter of fact, there is a special lexicon of original terms and expressions published at Eton, so that visitors may be aided in getting some sort of a line on the language used by the boys. I have tested students, as well as laymen of varied interests and training, on other expressions Specimen phrases trying to acquire respectability

which are regarded by some as slang, and by others as conventional speech. I have received

various expressions of opinion regarding the respectability of such words and phrases as the following: "Stunt"; "Dope"; "She's a peach"; "Scratch gravel"; "It cuts no ice"; "He's off his base"; "He went up in the air"; "He's a shark"; "He's a dandy"; "His nose is out of joint"; "He's up against it"; "He's got up on his ear"; "He's barking up the wrong tree"; "He's a tightwad"; "Straight goods"; "Half-baked"; "He's a sorehead"; "At rock-bottom price"; "Wide open with the lid off"; "Pass in your checks"; "I will not take any back talk"; "Don't monkey with the buzz-saw";